The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-29
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. Allen collars. Chief justice.
The following opinions were rendered june Is
LIQUOR LICENSE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
1875. William Groscap Joseph Rainier ct
al. DeKalb C. c. Affirmed. Howk. J.-Sec-
ton 1914 provides that lit shall be the privilege
OF any voter of said township to demonstrate. IN
writing, against the granting of such tilquorl
license any applicant account of immoral
ity or other unftness is specified in this act
The concluding phrase. "As is specihed In TINS
act,' does not qualify or limit the meaning OF
the word immortality TO such immortality only as
is specified in the act referred to- The I'M
morality TO disqualify the applicant need not De
shown to be the immortality specified IN TINS
section. 1t is immortality to frequent places
of gambling. Il Where the applicant did not
object to the hearing of the remonstrance, ana
it was determined by the board and likewise by
the court on appeal, he is estopped to deny that
the remonsrrants were legal voters
MARRIED woMAN-sURETYsHIP-
1905 John w Crooks VS. William Kennett
Hamilton c. G. Reversed. collars. J.-1E an
action quiet title the fact that the grantor
and wife had executed void mortgage by rea-
son of the suretyship of the wife. will not avail
the plaintiff, the grantee, the defense of covert
being a personal one of which third parties
cannot avail themselves for their own benefit
(2.) Where school fund mortgage was given
the rights of the State cannot be cut off by such
an action against the county auditor, the State
not being made party.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
1882 John B. Lyon ct al. vs. John Davis ct
~
bill of exceptions in this is informal because
III the caption and introductory part We're made
by the official reporter and entered upon the
long hand manuscript instead of comprising a
portion of the judges statement independently
of, ane predatory TO, the conclusion OF the long
hand manuscript. e Because the statement
that the parties offered the following evidence is
not equivalent that it was introduced or admit
ted. Tt is defective (1) because 1t shows on Its
face that it does not include all the evidence al
duced. II. Because the judge did not certiIY
that the evidence set out in the long hand manu-
script contains all the evidence given In the
EXAMINATION OF PARTY-CoNTEMPT-sUMM
1910 Maurice O. Bish ct al VS.. VIM R.
Beatty Starke c. G. Reversed Mitchell, d
When in proceeding to examine party under
the statutes summons is issued the defend
ant was not in contempt of the process OF any
court or officer for not attending upon the notice
of the plaintiffs. and hence was not subject to
the consequences provided in Sec. 513, which
authorizes the court to punish as for contempt
and to strike out the complaint answer or reply
of the party in default. Moreover 1t should
have appeared that the plaintiffs. someone In
their behalf. attended at the time and place
mentioned in the notice, and that they desired
to, and were ready, to examine the defendant
concerning some matter stated in the pleading
EvIDENcE-PUBLIc WAY.
1853 VIM Wheton ct al VS.. Thomas Clay
ton ct al. Elkhart G. G. Affirmed Elliott, -
1t is not proper to prove what individuals Will DO
where the question is whether public way
shall be laid out. or whether one already opened
shall be maintained. e. An order of vacation
of a public way cannot be proved by law with
out showing a reason for resorting to secondary
evidence.
13299 Hugh M. Mcdonald ct al VS.. Robert
E. Day. Brown G. c. Dismissed
1852 l., B. G. W. Railway Company vs..
Nathan Overman. Henry c. C. Opinion modi-
fed and rehearng denied
1890 John McPheeters vs. John b. Wright.
Noble G. c. Rehearing denied.
12446 c., H. e. G. Railway Company vs.
VIM. Broden. Decatur G. c. Rehearing denied
1869 Matthew Clegs VS.. Jacob Baumberger
Clark G. G. Rehearing denied
Superior Court
Room Hon. N. b. Taylor. Judge
Augustus Spiegel ct Fal. Sarah Bernstein
ct al; supplemental to execution. On trial by
Room s-Hon d. w Howe Judge.
Ellen B. Douglass Alfred Harrison ct al;
sale of real estate ordered by September term.
Ida N. Snyder VS.. Oscar j. Snyder; divorce.
John c. New VS. George W. New; suit note.
Judgment for plaintiff for So, 173. so
Annie Burns VS.. Thomas Schooiey ct al;
suit on note. Judgment for plaintiff for
Charles w. Lewis vs. Annie E. Lewis; divorce
On trial by court
Room s-IIon. Lewis G. Walker. Judge.
Charles E. Merrifed VS.. John NJ Needhamer;
foreclosure Special finding.
Haugh, ketcham 81 Co. VS.. Hugh Streeter:
contract. On trial by the court.
NEW SUITS.
Converse D. Marsh VS.. Joseph w. Wharton ct
al; complaint note Demand, $3.50.
James Hansen We. Chicago, St. Louis 81 Pitts
burg Railroad Company; suit for damages. De-
mand, $40, 600.
John Gross by VIM. w. Herod, VS.. Chicago,
St. Louis s. Pttsburg company; complaint for
damages. Demand, $l0.0 900.
Patrick Moriarlty VS.. indianapolis Bank COM
plant to recover certificate of deposit and DANA
ges Demand, $500
Alice M. Green VS.. Monroe Green; complaint
for divorce Allegation, abandonment.
Martha A. Griffin Wm r. Griffin; com
plant for divorce. Allegation. abandonment
and cruel treatment.